Part II: The Constitution

       Once again, I understand what many of you are facing with this information. But please, ask yourself if what you read here doesn't answer so many of the questions you have had over the years, with no answers for them. Why is it that no matter who gets elected, nothing changes?

       Why are the Republicans and Democrats so much alike? Where are all your "freedoms" going, and why? And there are many other questions as well. This is the answer, like it or not. And what you must do with this information is not just "believe" it, but go to work and confirm it!

       Many of you have worked very hard over the years to elect the "right politician". Well, while you have been working for "them", many other men, dozens, even hundreds of them, have been digging through case law decisions, filing freedom of information requests, initiating law suits against government personnel and entities to force the truth out and sifting through millions of pages of government archives, all of them looking for the information you now have access to.

       And this is not all. You are going to see a lot more over the next several parts, much of it to confirm to you that what you are reading here is the Truth.

       So, please, read on, and prepare yourself for much more in Part III!


What, Exactly, Is The Constitution?

The Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:

       To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;


       So what?

       Is the Constitution fact or fiction? That's all I want to know! Don't bore me with details or rhetoric about words or laws or statutes or any of that other 'stuff'!

       Just tell me; What, exactly, is the Constitution? Is it fact of fiction? Does it even exist anymore?

       Of course the Constitution exists, or Washington, D.C., as a seat of government, could not exist, because the Constitution is the creation document for what is known as The United States Government (i. e., the UNITED STATES). Without the Constitution, the District of Columbia ceases to have any lawful existence, except as a city (except as a city within the confines of the Commonwealth of Virginia; this is very important to know). Not that this would stop those in power in D.C., but it would raise some questions in the minds of the People that probably could not be answered without blood-shed, and some of the blood shed would be that of those in D.C., and, of course, their minions.

       So I think that everyone can agree that the Constitution is a fact. Not very many people deny that Washington, D.C., or that the UNITED STATES, exists. But what about fiction? Yes, the Constitution is also a fiction, but not in the literal sense. The Constitution is a fiction in the minds of the People; Those who persist in believing what they wish to have be true, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, including case law from the courts created by Congress through the power granted by the Constitution. That being said, the questions still remain concerning the Constitution.

       Yet the answers to all of our questions about the so-called Constitution is right in the Constitution; if we would simply read it, and think about what we are reading, instead of accepting that which we are TOLD we are reading! It took me many years and many false starts before I finally started to read the Constitution, instead of reading what others have said about the Constitution. Once I did this, what others were actually saying, instead of what I thought they were saying, became very clear.

       'They' tell us the answer to the vast majority of our questions at every opportunity, but we simply fail to hear what 'they' are really saying. We prefer to hear that which we think is being said, rather than carefully listening and thinking about the meaning behind the rhetoric.


       Since when did I pledge allegiance to any old "democracy"?

       All of us have heard the old objections and the questions about "what is going on" including the above. Why did we pledge "allegiance" to any creation of man without the realization that our husbands, brothers, fathers and sons (and now daughters) would be sent off to foreign wars for the profits and gain of the merchants of the earth?

I Samuel 8:18 "I brought up Israel from Egypt, I rescued you from the power of the Egyptians and from the power of all the realms that were oppressing you; and to-day you have rejected your God, who has himself saved you from all your calamities and distresses; you have said 'no' to me and claimed a king. Then he added, "Here are the methods of the king who shall reign over you; your sons he will take and place them in his chariots and among his horsemen and to run before his chariots; he will put them in command of his regiments and companies; some will have to plough his ground and reap his harvest, to make his arms and construct his chariots; your daughters he will take for perfumers and cooks and bakers; he will take the pick of your fields and vineyards and olive-yards and present them to his courtiers; a tenth part of your arable land and vineyards he will present to his officers and courtiers; your slaves, male and female, and the pick of your cattle and your asses, he will take and use for his own ends; a tenth part of your flocks he will take; and you yourselves shall be slaves to him. Then you will cry out on account of the king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Eternal will not answer you then."

       The above is one of the strongest parts of the Bible, and the one everyone can understand around him in action, if he will but look. It says very plainly that God the Eternal will not hear your call until you come out of her! And it goes a long way in explaining the Constitution, as you will see. And in understanding why those who serve the UNITED STATES in aggressive warfare are so punished for their actions. For instance, all of the POW/MIAs, the Gulf War Syndrome sufferers, Michael New and all the rest too numerous to mention. There have been tens of thousands. There will be thousands more. Perhaps millions more.

       You defend your nation on the shores and fields of the nation; You plunder other nations on their shores and in their fields. That is the lesson of foreign wars and of a standing army. A standing army is always, in the final resort, used against the People it supposedly is to protect. A standing army is always, in the end, filled with desperate men who will do whatever is necessary to protect what little they think is theirs, be it rank, starvation wages, or a way of life they can not do without. Pity them, for they know not what they do.

(See the British army in the building of the British merchant Empire and the accumulation of the vast wealth of the Rothschilds/Rhodes and the like. It is very instructive to talk to UNITED STATES soldiers today, and hear how they cannot get an education any other way or, in many cases, earn a living outside of the military forces. This is identical to the situation which existed in England for centuries, and the world is littered with the graves of the common folk of England who died to 'create' the merchant Empire of "The City", and who never saw any gain for their deaths. Also see the book The Empire of "The City" by E. C. Knuth, where you will learn that the real power of the British "Empire" is the London financial district known as "The City", and "the Crown" is the committee of 12 to 14 men who rule "The City", thus being the "power" behind the "King".)

       Always the illusion must be kept before the "People" of the united States that what they are supporting and/or fighting for is the Union of States, the united States, instead of some kingdom, the UNITED STATES (a corporation) located on the banks of the Potomac. More on this later. History always repeats itself; those who fail to study history become just so many more victims of history: the Wilderness; Iwo Jima; the Bulge; Stalingrad; Hiroshima; the Ardennes; Pork Chop Hill; Viet Nam; Iraq; Gettysburg; and on and on.

       And I've said nothing about the above Clause 17 from the Constitution. Perhaps just to give you a chance to think about it some more. Why? Because the answer is right there before us, if we are willing to put our preconceived, preprogrammed prejudices aside and actually think about what we are reading. If need be, get out a legal dictionary and look up the words.

       What you are reading as Article1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution of the United States of America is why so many Americans refer to the United States as Amerika. Because of the Constitution, this is what exists now as the UNITED STATES of 1998, and on into the future. Not a pretty place, from my view point. But it is exactly what was intended by the men who, meeting secretly, wrote the Constitution!

       And to understand this completely, to understand the secrecy completely, there is one more part of the Constitution which we must consider; Article VI, Clause II:

       This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every States shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Read the above section again, only end it with not with standing, instead of notwithstanding, and think about how that changes the meaning of the Clause: the laws and Constitution of any state to the contrary will not have standing, in Washington, D.C..

       This Clause is only interesting if taken within the context of Article1, Section 8, Clause 17. Read again: and all Treaties made ... Then think about one clear, simple fact; 'They' put no limitation upon time as far as when the chain of treaties began.

       Could the train go clear back to the charter granted in the early 1600s by the King of England to Virginia? A charter issued under the authority of "the Crown", which is the London Financial District known as 'the City"? Would this perhaps explain the First Bank of the United States a little better? And Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 would be absolutely essential for this Clause of Article VI to be enforced.

       It is also important to understand the relationship of the "Supreme Court" to these proceedings: Only the King's Lawyers have ever been allowed to 'practice' law before the Supreme Court or before any court subordinate to the Supreme Court. But I digress ...…

       What do you think of when you say Constitution? Most people I have talked to think of a beautiful scroll, with the words "We find these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" written thereon. In fact, I have even had people tell me that these words are a part of the preamble to the Constitution. Of course, this is wrong, because the words come from the foundation document of these united States, The Declaration of Independence. Legally referred to as the Statute of 1776, The Declaration of Independence is the cornerstone upon which our freedoms rest. The Declaration of Independence is what the men of the Revolutionary War shed their blood for, not the Constitution! But the programming of our People has been so complete that everyone believes that the Constitution is the key document.

       Nothing could be further from the truth! The more I learn, the more convinced I become that the Constitution was actually the bankers/King of England/lawyer’s answer to The Declaration of Independence. And it is impossible, with any study of history, to believe that "accidents" happen in politics. (If it was an "accident", it would be corrected.) To believe that a "mistake" of the magnitude of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution of the United States of America just "happened" through error and oversight of the men who created the Constitution. Or that Washington, D.C., just 'happened' to be placed within Virginia. Or that the provision of Article VI, Clause II exists.

       Most everyone has heard of the "fatal flaw" in the Constitution. But most everyone claims that the general welfare clause is the problem; They are wrong. The clause enumerated above, Clause 17 of Section 8, Article I is the fatal flaw in the Constitution.

       How can we tell that?

       By Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, of course, and by case law as well.

       The Constitution is the law of the land, right?


       The Constitution is the law of the land, except for the 10 miles square area known as the District of Columbia!

       The Constitution does not apply in Washington, D.C.! That is precisely what the above Clause of the 'Constitution' is all about! "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever ...."

       There is no control on Congress within Washington, D.C., whatsoever. Not by the Constitution, and not by the People who supposedly "benefit" from the Constitution. None whatsoever. Congress can do whatsoever they please in D.C., with no law, and no People, to answer to. That is, by definition, a "democracy".

       And I have already heard all of the arguments that 'one little tiny mistake by our forefathers does not negate a great document, the best effort the world has ever seen in man's attempt to obtain freedom' (see I Samuel 8:18). This is not one tiny little mistake! At least 95% of all of the "laws" enacted by "Congress" are enacted through the power granted by this Clause! And then I hear about how the 'court' destroyed the Constitution by their "false interpretation" of this clause. In Downes v. Bidwell, the Supreme Court ruled that "exclusive" meant exactly that; EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction, with no control from the Constitution. (In Downes v. Bidwell, the Court ruled that "exclusive" meant "without consideration of the Constitutional restraints ....") A few years later, the Supreme Court confirmed this ruling in Hooven v. Evatt, and I fail to see how else the 'court' could have ruled! What is not understandable about "exclusive"? But of course, this is not all of the story either!

       Tell me, what is the definition of Democracy? And yes, we've all heard the bit about "mob rule", but what does that mean?

       Simply put, it means that there is no law to govern by (no Constitution; no Scripture; nothing), that anything is permissible if the majority, or rather the controlling (moneyed) minority, desires it. No law. None whatsoever. Anything goes, including genocide, debt creation, concentration camps, income tax, social security, or anything else that the People can be convinced is good enough to contract for. Oh, and let me be very clear about this; The People only have to contract for the benefits they want, because the rest comes along with the pie, unseen and not thought of until it applies. Think of it this way, a "benefit" or a "privilege" is "bait". As any fisherman knows, "bait" always has a hook in it.

       What is the hook? Anytime you apply for any benefit from any arm of the government, you first must surrender all Rights. All Rights. There can be no exception to this statement, because any creation of man, capable of giving "benefits", must gain something by the giving of the benefit, or there is no reason to give the benefit. Benefits are privileges. Privileges only exist for your benefit at the expense of some other man. Thus, any benefit for you must be taken from someone else first, so any government "empowered to give" must first be "empowered to take". This is the purpose of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

Black's Law Dictionary, Volume 6, page 1197: Privilege. A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others.

       Does it make any sense to ask 'man' for the privilege of being set above other men? To enjoy an advantage over other men? Does it make any sense to think that there is not some cost involved in gaining such a privilege? No lawful government, of the People, by the People, and for the People, can give any privilege to one man, because such can only be done at the expense of another man. So there is always more to the story than what you see on the surface. There is the rest of the story.

       Just like the parasitic infestations in pork and in shell fish, the rest of the story is unseen until the host becomes so sick that the problem can not be ignored. All that was needed in order to destroy what was created by the Declaration of Independence and the blood of those who died for freedom in the Revolutionary War was for the framers of the "Constitution" to give exclusive power to make "law" to any branch of the so-called government in any forum whatsoever and the nature of man would take care of the rest.

       The nature of man, with a little help from the King's minions, namely his lawyers. Please see the info about Esquires in United States citizen, Yes or No?

       Then, when Congress went sine a die in 1861, exclusive Legislative power devolved unto the President, who, at the point of a gun (acting as Commander-in-Chief of the army), reconvened Congress. Thereafter, you find legislation by Presidential fiat, i.e.,, Executive Orders, become the "law of the land" (but ONLY in Washington, D.C., under the municipal code of D.C., in the territories and in the federal district States).

       The only quasi-legitimate manner in which to convince the vast majority of the People to enter into the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress was to offer a "contract(s)" under the guise of a "benefit", without explaining all of the elements of the contract. Of course, this is called a constructive trust (see Black's Law Dictionary for an explanation of constructive trust, i.e.,, constructive fraud).

       Why must there be a contract? Under the Constitution, the absolute Right to contract is protected, and it is only in this manner that your other Rights can voluntarily be given up for the duration of the contract entered into. The contracts thus entered into form trusts, which I have also seen called Bifurcated Trusts. It is through these so-called trusts that the financial interest in your labor and time is claimed for the benefit of those who conspire to have the laws and statutes passed which most benefit them in the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress in the District of Criminals, Washington, D.C..

       The only manner in which this thievery of the labor and time of the People of America can be thus accomplished, is that each individual must be, in some manner, convinced to volunteer (perhaps you have heard of our voluntary tax code?) into the jurisdiction of the municipal code of Washington, D.C., where Congress holds exclusive Legislative power. The operative word being power. And the Constitution absolutely forbids Congress and the States from interfering in any manner with the Obligation of Contracts.

       Once you volunteer into the jurisdiction of the municipal code of Washington, D.C., the restraints of the Constitution on the workings of government officials no longer apply, and they can and will do whatever they wish. By contracting for privileges into Washington, D.C., you remove yourself from above the Constitution to a place beyond the Constitution, where there is no law.

       This is called the King's Privilege. The King's Sovereignty is based on his 'right' to make law. If he has the right to make law, then he is bound by no law! And those who are bound by the law he 'makes' are called subjects! So if you are bound by the laws written by Congress, if you are a United States citizen, do not fool yourself about your legal status.

       This is important to understand, because you, as a native American, are not under the Constitution, unless you are an official of the so-called government; Sworn to uphold and defend the said document. (Why anyone would take such an oath is beyond me, but then, I'm not as young and foolish as I once was!) Did you sign the Constitution? No? Then you are not under it, and there is case law on this subject. The courts understand this, even if the vast majority of us do not. The courts tell us "Don't bring up the Constitution in this court!" and we don't understand that the only thing being adjudicated in that court are contracts.

       The Constitution is simply a restraint upon those who work in the so-called government. It is nothing else, and conveys no privileges nor benefits to the common man, nor does it grant any protections. The Constitution simply makes the existence of the District of Criminals in Washington possible. And the men who wrote the Constitution understood exactly what they were doing. No one who called themselves a Christian and who recognized the Lawgiver of the Universe could not understand what a license they were handing to Congress with the term exclusive Legislation.

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 919; License. A personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on land without possessing any estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor and is not assignable .... The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, a tort, or otherwise not allowable ... Certificate or the document itself which gives permission. Leave to do thing which licensor could prevent ... Permission to do a particular thing, to exercise a certain privilege or to carry on a particular business or to pursue a certain occupation .......

       "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever ...." Who could issue such a license to "make law"? Only the King.

       To make any law whatsoever. To 'create' any tax code, for Washington, D.C.! To create any privilege whatsoever for any one willing to pay enough for the privilege. For instance, the 'privilege' of printing 'money'. But only for Washington, D.C..

       To make any law whatsoever! It is impossible for me to believe that the men who fought and died for freedom in the Revolutionary War would ever agree to let any man write the law under which they must live. Who has the power to write law? Only THE Sovereign. The power to write law IS the power of sovereignty, and any man who must obey the said laws is known as a subject, as in ‘subject to the power of’. The more I learn the more I understand why the Constitution was written in secrecy. And now I understand what I was told concerning the Constitution being sent to Britain in 1788 for approval, before the final draft was accepted in 1792. You will understand as well, before I am done.

       And I know that many of you will simply shake your head in disbelief about all of the nonsense, like, for sure, yeh, Great Britain! Only the greatest maritime power on the face of the earth for centuries. And just a small island, kinda like a ten miles square district of Virginia, you know, perhaps you've heard of Washington, D.C.?

       However, if you want a lesson in real American History, go to:


and download the file '1STCONG.ZIP' and read a "true and correct copy of the Constitution from 1789, before the Bill of Rights-check this out, and see all the changes made by our government". This is the version of the Constitution accepted by the delegates of the States, not the one "adopted" by the 'government' in 1792, AFTER the British approved the final version. I think you will find it rather interesting to compare the two versions, and this may help you understand what is actually going on in America.

       And remember this; men such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson certainly knew and understood exactly what was going on. Many of the ordinary delegates and such certainly did not know or understand, or many of the so-called founding fathers would have been lynched!

       Now all that had to be done was to devise some manner of convincing all of those so-called free-men out there that it was a good idea to contract into the jurisdiction of Washington, D.C.! Because no matter what privilege or 'tax code' is created for the benefit of the wealthy minority, it is of no benefit to 'them' without the willing 'taxpayers' to participate. You know; the cannon fodder; the useless eaters, the vast majority of the People of the united States, who must be convinced that the united Sates is really the UNITED STATES, and that the Constitution is a GREAT document! Oh, isn't public education wonderful?

       Once you understand these facts, the Buck Act, Social Security (the greatest Ponzi scheme ever devised!), the so-called Income Tax, the IRS, FBI and all of the other alphabet soup agencies begin to make sense. Not much, until you finally grasp that Congress has the right to regulate those who are contracted into their exclusive jurisdiction!

       Contracting with equals the acceptance of.


       To Contract with Congress is to accept any burden placed upon Washington, D.C., by Congress, including the payment of the national bankruptcy, serve in foreign wars for the benefit of the merchants of death, be a guinea pig for medical experiments, in fact, to act as a slave of Congress, just as the contracts spell out. To be, in short, a subject.

       And there are two more points which needs to be pointed out here:

First, you can not go to Congress and ask for relief from taxes. These men, and women, are contracted to support the Constitution, under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now, what happens when you or some Congressman questions this "National" debt, or asks Congress for "relief," especially in the nature of curtailing the activities of everyone’s favorite agency, the IRS? Well, all Congressmen, probably you, and, of course, all lawyers, are bound by contract to the terms and conditions of the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment is very plain, and quite clear:

Section 4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned…

This also means that any efforts taken to collect upon this debt shall not be questioned. So you should think about this very carefully before you rush out to work and donate to elect some new Congressman who will "make a difference." Yeah, right, and if pigs could fly…

       Second, I would like to ask how an American would ever know if the President, Congress, or courts are in treason when they have never read the Constitution? And yes, I remember what I wrote at the beginning about just read the darn thing! But this is in the nature of a lesson, to show you that even if you read what is put forth, it is probably a lie, and certainly not fully disclosed, unless you literally see everything. This is why it becomes necessary for you to have "faith" in the system, and why so much effort is put forth to be sure that you do have "faith," even in the face of mounting evidence that "something" is wrong. As long as you can be convinced that with a little more effort, one more election, one different man in the right place at the right time, we can solve all of these nagging little problems… As long as you can be convinced to continue to participate, the purpose and function of the Constitution can continue to be fulfilled. That purpose, and that function, has nothing to do with you except as your participation continues to benefit those in control of that corporation established by the Constitution.

In this regard, I have corresponded with literally thousands of people on this subject of the Constitution, and I have never encountered a single one of them that can honestly claim to have read the entire Constitution for the United States. Now, before you start to think of arguing with me about this, finish reading!

If anyone thinks that they have read the constitution, then I would ask that they immediately look in Black's Law Dictionary for the term, "incorporation by reference." In my sixth edition of Black's, it is on page 766. The actual description of the term is something like:

'The method of making one document of any kind become a part of another separate document by referring to the former in the latter, and declaring that the former shall be taken and considered as a part of the latter the same as if it were fully set out therein.'

With this phrase in mind, examine Article 6, clause 1 of the constitution. This reads:

"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."

Thus we see two "incorporations by reference" of an unspecified number of documents. Where are the documents describing the "Debts contracted" and the "Engagements entered into". Especially, where are the documents regarding the "engagements entered into" for remedying the bankruptcy under the Articles of Confederation? The phrase "as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation" would require that the entire document, including seals and signatures, be incorporated "the same as if it were fully set out therein."

In clause two, there is the phrase, "and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,". This includes two more classes of documents that are incorporated by reference, i.e.- all past Treaties and all future Treaties. I am well aware of the Supreme Court decisions that no treaty can operate contrary to the constitution, however, as pointed out above, unless we see

the "Engagements entered into" and all of the treaties that were made BEFORE the constitution was written, how can we mere mortals know if a NEW Treaty banning personal ownership of firearms for anyone under the jurisdiction of congress would be in conflict with one of the many documents that were made an integral part of the organic constitution as an

"incorporation by reference"?       In clause two, there is the phrase, "and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,". This includes two more classes of documents that are incorporated by reference, i.e., all past Treaties and all future Treaties. I am well aware of the Supreme Court decisions that no treaty can operate contrary to the constitution, however, as pointed out above, unless we seehe "Engagements entered into" and all of the treaties that were made BEFORE the constitution was written, how can we mere mortals know if a NEW Treaty banning personal ownership of firearms for anyone under the jurisdiction of congress would be in conflict with one of the many documents that were made an integral part of the organic constitution as an "incorporation by reference"?

How many so-called "Patriots" are there who have made an oath to "defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic" can now say that they have read and understand the Constitution? I am looking for the documents that were incorporated by reference. I would really like some help on this, because I have located some of the treaties, but I would also like to have some of the "engagements entered into."

       I sincerely hope this helps everyone to understand that it is not possible to be truly informed about the Constitution, as there are simply to many secrets behind and within it. Once you reach this point of understanding, get ye out of her begins to make even more sense!


       One of the real problems that the People of the united States face is educating themselves, because those who benefit from our ignorance, are not going to volunteer the information required for our freedom! And our education begins with the most basic of all facts: everything you sign is a contract! Or you would not be asked to sign it!!!!!!

       When I was younger, I signed everything put before me. Now, you'll have a very difficult time making me sign anything that I didn't write! And for sure I am not going to sign anything that is not completely before me, such as a bank signature card where you agree to abide by all the rules and regulations of the Federal Reserve. After all, there are only about 7 million pages of statutes, rules, ordinances and the like involved, so why worry, right?

       This is particularly amusing to me when friends and neighbors argue with me about not being able to obey The True God's Laws, because there are just too many of them (about 728)! But these same people will willingly and even eagerly sign a contract to observe 7 million pages of rules and regulations without batting an eye, and then wonder why they are in trouble with the IRS, or the BATF, or any of the other numerous agencies of Washington, D.C..

       If you are confused about this, read the Arman Condo Letter, and follow up with Invisible Contracts, then What Is Money? By the time you finish, you will be ready for the book Strategic Withdrawal (find at '' in the section marked catalog), and you will begin to understand why the book costs what it does. And you may even learn that it is the cheapest book you will ever purchase.

       When you look up the Constitution of 1789, take a look at the file 'ACOUNNES.ZIP'. See for yourself where the US went bankrupt. You'll be amazed by documents that prove your property right down to your shorts has been mortgaged to the world bankers, through the exclusive jurisdiction of Washington, D.C. . See also BANK_WAR.ZIP; Supreme Court statements that the 13th and 14th Amendments undermine the U.S,. Constitution and extend jurisdiction over "U.S. Citizens" (and those who claim to be). Many citings that U.S. citizens are NOT protected by the Bill of Rights.

Regulation, or Benefit?

       A friend just brought me some information that is very interesting. In the April, 1998, newsletter from the California Department of Real Estate (DRE), the DRE informs their licensees that under the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act" (welfare reform act of 1996) passed by the U.S. Congress (what a surprise!), the State of California must insure that no benefits are provided to illegal aliens. It is interesting to note that the DRE goes on to say: The definition of a public benefit includes professional and occupational licenses issued to individuals by state agencies." For years people have been told that these licenses are only "regulatory" in nature, to insure that the public is protected from unscrupulous or improperly trained personnel in positions that may be prone to cause serious injury (financial or physical) to the public.

       As you can see, the truth always comes out. Any license issued by any government is a benefit! And a contract, with the government. It is a privilege issued at the expense of your fellow man, and there is a cost. There is no such thing as a free lunch. We know this, but ... we keep acting as if there is not absolute truth in the statement. Remember; any 'government' big and powerful enough to give you anything you need or want is also big and powerful enough to take from you anything someone else wants or desires!

       And I know that many of you are going to be in denial about what I have written. However, you should not be, and will not be, if you just continue to study and learn. There are no accidents in politics. Everything is carefully planned to occur in just the manner in which they do. And one of the pieces that I learned that really put everything in perspective for me concerns the so-called father of 'our' country; George Washington.

       I have always wondered exactly where the federal districts had their beginnings. I've seen much of the information developed about 'federalism' and 'federal zones', etc., but every time I thought I had finally arrived at the source of the infection, more information came to my view. On the internet, at '', is a very interesting on-line book titled The United States is Still a Subject of Great Britain. Recently new to this on-line book is a summary section in which I found the following information:

       "In reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. I, 1789-1897, I discovered the following:

Gentlemen of the Senate:

Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the act entitled "An act repealing after the last day of June next the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same," I have thought fit to divide the United States into the following districts, namely:

The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of New Hampshire; the district of Massachusetts, to consist of the State of Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, to consist of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; the district of Connecticut, to consist of the State of Connecticut; the district of Vermont, to consist of the State of Vermont; the district of New York, to consist of the State of New York; the district of New Jersey, to consist of the State of New Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania, to consist of the State of Pennsylvania; the district of Delaware, to consist of the State of Delaware; the district of Maryland, to consist of the State of Maryland; the district of Virginia, to consist of the State of Virginia; the district of North Carolina, to consist of the State of North Carolina; the district of South Carolina, to consist of the State of South Carolina; and the district of Georgia, to consist of the State of Georgia." March 4, 1791 (page 99).

In George Washington's Proclamation of March 30, 1791, he declares the district of Columbia to be created and its borders established, he says further:


        "And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of the present month of March have given further authority to the President of the United States ...."

       This replaced the States in Union with the District States in Union formally known as the States of .... This was also necessary for the newly formed Bank of the United States, February 25, 1791, to do business in the State of ..., but is actually the District State. Subjection of the States of ... was complete, all that was necessary was for a permanent state of war to exist, such as we have had since the Civil War, to invoke statutory law over the enemy, requiring them to obey all license requirements, because enemies have no rights in an occupied territory.

       Washington declared, under the War Powers, acting as Commander-in-Chief, that the States of the Union were now overlaid by District States, which as I think you know, removes the States boundaries as a matter of sovereignty, violating the Constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government to the States in Union, Article 4, Sec. 4, which cannot take place if delegated authority is taken under the War Powers, not ceded by the Charter/Constitution.

       The Constitution granted legislative authority to Congress only over a ten square mile District, making Congress the supreme authority, Article 1, Sec. 17, over the District. Washington extended this District without Constitutional authority. Washington put in place officers of the District to oversee the District States. As a result of the military rule imposed by Washington, District courts and Appeals courts were ordered to enforce collection and fines and imprisonment of anyone defying the laws of the United States. THESE DISTRICTS CREATED BY GEORGE WASHINGTON HAVE NEVER BEEN REMOVED. The Judicial Districts were created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, two years before Washington said Congress gave him additional powers, thereby HE created District States, so the federal government could use the militias to crush the tax protesters in Pennsylvania, by Washington's order. Since the Judicial Districts already existed, why did they recreate them? Washington said he was dividing the United States into District States."...

       END OF QUOTE.

       There is more, and to understand fully, I urge you to read the entire book-on-line. However, the rest of this paragraph, as contained in the summary is, in my opinion, in error. The author of the summary goes on to talk about DIVIDING THE STATES, but that is not what happened. You must understand the difference between the United States and the united States. Washington divided the United States into districts, not the united States. The United States is formed BY the Constitution; the united States are the union States, which unwisely formed the United States. This is a powerful distinction which must be understood for effective action in removing the legal disabilities of contractual obligations with the exclusive jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES. If it was not a powerful distinction, they would not have to contract you into the jurisdiction, but would assume all of the powers they desire without the "legal" niceties of a contract.

       To help understand a little better, look at Supreme Court Rule 45.1, which says that all process of that court is in the name of the president of the United States. The Supreme Court (and all courts subject to the rules laid down by the Supreme Court) can only be an executive branch (martial law) court. Since the ultimate court of appeal to all so-called courts now under the American BAR (British Accreditation Regency) Association in the United States is a martial law court, then all subordinate courts are also martial law courts operating in the federal districts originated by George Washington!

(When you are looking up the Constitution of 1789, go to the file marked 'FEDJURIS.ZIP', and read a speech by Judge Yankovich at Stanford University showing federal jurisdiction in the courts.)

       There are three branches of government in the United States; legislative, executive and judicial. All three branches of government are capable of having their own courts, i. e., legislative = legislative tribunal; executive = courts-martial (martial law under the president acting as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces) and the judicial, which must operate in the Union States only under the rules of the common law. I know of no legitimate state courts, which would be courts of the People under common law, in America at this time. No court operating in America can be a common law court if the said court is under the BAR, which owes allegiance to a foreign power, i.e., The City.

       The author of the summary quoted above correctly identified the problem, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution of the United States of America. However, in reading his works, I doubt if he truly understood the real nature of the problem: There is no law in Washington, D.C. . Anything goes. Anything, that is, that someone is willing to pay enough to make it worth while for the 'politicians' to act. After all, the UNITED STATES has the best politicians money can buy! Of course, "anything goes" subject to their willingness to be bound by and enter into additional treaties. If you wish to understand what I mean, study the record of those in Washington, D.C., and the treaties made with the Indians. It becomes very obvious that the only treaties made and kept by "them" are the ones which personally benefit "them".

       There is one more quote from the summary, concerning Patrick Henry's speech of June 5, 1788, which is very important here:

       "Mr. Chairman. .. I rose yesterday to ask a question, which arose in my own mind. When I asked the question. I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and America may depend on this: Have they said, we the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between States? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing-- -- the expression, We the People, instead of the States of America. I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolite and dangerous. Is this a Monarchy, like England-- -- a compact between Prince and people; with checks and balances on the former, to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a Confederacy, like Holland-- -- and association of a number of independent States, each of which retain its individual sovereignty?"

       The Confederate States of America.

       Perhaps that makes more sense to you now. Perhaps you should read the first sentence of the March 1, 1781, Articles of Confederation: "To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the under signed Delegates of the States affixed to our Names, send greeting."

       And maybe just a little more of this foundation document, which is superior law to the Constitution:

       Article I. The Title of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America."

       Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

       Perhaps all of us can now begin to see where our freedoms and Rights went, and what the real intent behind the Constitution and all of the licenses and other contracts entered into with any arm of government really is. Because I bring witness to you, that until you identify the real basis of the problem, solutions are not possible.

       I also witness to you that freedom is really rather simple. The first basis of freedom is to not 'request' a privilege from any man or any creation of man which sets you above your fellow men. Such as a license. For to do so is to give prima facie evidence that the man or the creation of man that you demanded the privilege from is superior to you, with the authority to elevate you above other men. You give prima facie evidence that the said power is your sovereign.

       If every man and woman in America would realize this, our problems would evaporate. Government is an illusion, created by men for the benefit of men at the expense of other men. YOU give 'government' its force and effect by recognizing it, and by participating in it's games (i.e., voting, licensing, etc.). When enough People wise up, government goes away, or, at least, enough of it goes away that it can become manageable by We the People.

       Government is operated by parasites; men, and women, who have no wish nor ability to produce. They must exist at the expense of others. Politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, judges, professional military; all of these have one thing in common: Most, 99% most, have never worked a day in their lives, producing something for themselves or their fellow man. When you take away the incentive for parasites, they go away or they die off! Their incentive is called taxation. License fees are taxation.

       To understand this better, read the Constitution. The only taxes authorized by the Constitution, excise and impost taxes and duties, are designed to protect the People of the united States from foreigners. Scripture tells us that only foreigners are to be taxed. Direct taxes (on land, income, labor, etc.) are forbidden, except in Washington, D.C., where Congress has exclusive jurisdiction! Congress' incentive to tax ends when We the People stop going to them with hat in hand asking for a special privilege, a benefit, or a license. When We the People quit volunteering into their exclusive jurisdiction!

       Oh, by the way, the Constitution is NOT suspended! I remember hearing all about "the suspension of the Constitution" and the talk about how "the judges don't respect the Constitution" and how "the politicians ignore the Constitution"! Nothing could be further from the truth. The problem is not with them; It's our problem. The Constitution is very dear and important to those in Washington, D.C. . After all, it's the source of their power, so they certainly are not about to suspend it! All they want to do is to figure out how to entice each and every one of the People of the several States to contract with their exclusive jurisdiction for some privilege/benefit.

       And it does not matter if the so-called Amendments to the Constitution are ratified by the several States or not. (It's THEIR Constitution, People!) Such as all of the nonsense about the so-called Sixteenth Amendment. The Amendments after the first thirteen (I'm referring to the original Thirteenth Amendment) were simply adopted as part of the municipal code of the District of Columbia by the UNITED STATES, and they have no force and effect outside of the territory of the UNITED STATES except for those under contract into the exclusive jurisdiction wherein the so-called amendments ARE important.

       The same is true of all acts of Congress. Congress passes two types of bills. They differ in how they are numbered. Some begin with H, and most with HR. Those beginning with HR are for the municipal code of Washington, D.C., and mean nothing to the several States. And the men who serve in Washington understand this very well. It is only We the People who are confused. We have to be made to believe that it is in our interest to volunteer into their exclusive jurisdiction. After all, if they were sitting there on the Potomac, all by themselves, with no subjects to pay them and give them power, it wouldn't be much fun, now would it? So when you come right down to it, whose fault are the problems that we in America are experiencing? The politicians? The bankers? The cops? Or is it our fault?

       I know where I think the blame lies.

       It lies with the Constitution and those who serve it, and we who participate with them. Look at all of the problems in America. Look at what is happening to many Americans. Look at the prisons full of men and women who never harmed anyone. Look at all of the abortions, the drugs, the Gestapo agencies, the millions of pages of so-called laws, the federal registry, the 'president' writing law (executive orders), look at all of it very closely. All of this is happening, not in spite of the Constitution, but because of the Constitution. The Constitution is the author of all this misery, deceit and crime. The Constitution, and its fatal flaw.

       Chose this day who you will serve: The One True God, or Mammon. I hope this paper makes the choices we, each and every one, make each day a little easier to understand.

       And if you chose to continue your relationship with Mammon, then quit belly-aching and pay the taxes, because you owe them! When you take privileges from the government, and then refuse to pay the taxes due, they rightly label you a tax protester. If you owe the tax, pay it!

       Bless you, each and every one, and through our combined efforts, I pray that once again The One True God may bless the united States, these Union States. One day, perhaps, these Republics; These Confederate States of America!

"If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true or false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced". Book Three of Dune, page 244.

       What is a belief? Simply put, a belief is an assumption accepted without proof being offered. The Constitution is a great document, right? Yet you know a tree by its fruit, not by its roots. In medieval Europe, a serf on his Lord's land owed the first 25% of the newly created wealth of the soil to his master. Today, in America, the land of the "free", at least 65% goes to the hidden masters!

       In Bill Clinton's 1993 report on the budget to Congress, it was admitted that the accumulative tax rate in the United States was 65%, and would be 85% by 2005. (They know and understand exactly what is going on.) Simply put, this means that when you buy a loaf of bread for $1.00, 65 cents is taxes. When you buy a house for $100,000.00, $65,000.00 is taxes.

       This, ladies and gentlemen, is the "fruit" of the Constitution.


Jose:; A Christian Patriot

Summary: There has been some additional pages added to this paper. I have also been told that a brief description of the facts contained herein is necessary.

The facts are simple:

  1. The Constitution was the answer to The Declaration of Independence.
  2. The Constitution was the formative document for a new Crown colony, placed in the united States on a piece of ground ceded by Virginia. This gives the United States the same status under International Law as Canada. This was done by men who had no desire to see the "colonies" separate from Britain. Men who deeply felt the need for a "king".
  3. The Fourteenth Amendment was the final installment of the answer to The Declaration of Independence. This was the purpose of the Civil War. See the essay United States citizen, Yes or No?

  4. If you are under the legal disability of any contract to Congress through the municipal code of Washington, D.C., you are a subject of the said Crown colony. You are a subject of the King.
  5. Under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress simply means under feudal law, i.e., , the King's privilege.
  6. If you are working on "reforming" Washington, D.C., and trying to "elect" the "right people for the job", if you are trying to involve others in this nonsense, you are trying to do the impossible! Washington, D.C., is exactly what it was intended to be, and you will never change that!

The only solution to Washington, D.C., is to stop playing "their" games, and stop supporting it! This will do one of two things: they will either die on the vine, or they will come after everyone (good luck to them if they dare to do this!). Either way, it is the only way we will ever solve the problem.

       Anything short of solving your legal disability problems with their exclusive jurisdiction is simply feeding them more power and more authority. And, more importantly, giving them more time to plan their final, apocalyptic scenario which will crush our People. I don't know what that scenario will be, but I have some pretty good ideas, and most of our People will never even understand what has happened to them!

       Good luck, and God Bless! And do not lose heart. I would not be doing this if there were not a solution! Keep reading, and all will become clear.

       "Those who engage in politics do so for self-interest. It is extreme folly to expect that having elected someone who you desire to serve your self-interest, that the individual so elected will not then serve his own self-interest, and thus, serve those with the most money. This is the history of man’s government on earth, and those who engage with such governments without understanding this fact of human nature do so at their own peril, and through their own ignorance. To rail at the betrayal of "your trust" while working in your own interest is not only ignorance, it is self-betrayal at it’s worst, and not only betrayal of yourself, but of your family, friends and nation as well." David Gould

       Now that you have finished Part II, and if you are comfortable and ready to proceed, please read Part III.  Please, do not skip Parts!  It really is not wise.

       Part III is different, and a number of people have told me they like it the best of any of the sections. You might let me know your opinion as well. A good part of Part III is to prepare you for some of the information to follow. Please bear with me as you read it.  -- David Gould.


Return to Table of Contents for

David Gould